Rob Dymond - Manchester University



Leaving our students behind:

A view on how Educators are breaking the code

Michael R. Dymond

Ethical Decision Making 215

Ken Brown

23 November 2004

Standardized Testing Programs mandated by the Federal Government, and developed by each individual state, is in conflict with most accepted educational ethics of teaching conduct. Through the use of standardized testing, teachers have had to rethink and reevaluate their own code of ethics. The testing itself conflicts with long held teaching ethics. By administering these assessments, mandated by the Federal Government in “No Child Left Behind” legislation, educators unwillingly, in most cases, are violating their own code of ethics regarding what is in the best interest of their students.

Every school district developes their own codes of ethics usually modeled from the National Education Association, or based on their own state Code of Ethics. The (NEA) Code of Ethics for the Education Professional, under (Principle I: Commitment to the Student) states: “In fulfillment of the obligation to the student, the educator—

Shall not unreasonably restrain the student from independent action in the pursuit of learning.

1. Shall not unreasonably deny the student’s access to varying points of view.

2. Shall not deliberately suppress or distort subject matter relevant to the student’s progress

3. Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning or to health and safety

4. Shall not intentionally expose the student to embarrassment or disparagement

5. Shall not on the basis of race, color , creed, sex, national origin, marital status, political or religious beliefs, family, social or cultural background, or sexual orientation, unfairly—

a. Exclude any student from participation in any program

b. Deny benefits to any student

c. Grant advantage to any student

6. Shall not use professional relationships with students for private advantage

7. Shall not disclose information about students obtained in the course of professional service unless disclosure serves a compelling professional purpose or is required by law.[1]

The mandated testing programs violate numbers one through six of the NEA Code of Ethics.

Good learners, according to Bill Ayers an educator, believes that “Standardized tests can’t measure initiative, creativity, imagination, conceptual thinking, curiosity, effort, irony, judgment, commitment, nuance, good will, ethical reflection, or a host of other valuable dispositions and attributes.”[2] In order to be successful, standardized testing programs have educators spending considerable time teaching “the facts” and curriculum which is aligned to the tests. The testing programs are more a political tool to raise the awareness of tougher standards and accountability of students and teachers. By insisting on good test scores as a political mandate, students are not encouraged to be good life-long learners.

The tests are designed to measure isolated skills, specific facts, and functions. The tests are basically multiple-choice, and short constructed responses. Using multiple choice response formats, students are more likely to conclude “that a right or wrong answer is available for all questions and problems” in life and that “someone else already knows the answer to [all these questions], so original interpretations are not expected; the task is to find or guess the right answer, rather than to engage in interpretive activity.”[3] The constructed responses must include specific words and/or concepts to get correct answers. “The right-answer focus of standardized testing also means that all the problems were chosen precisely because they have unambiguously correct solutions, with definite criteria for determining what those solutions are and a clear technique for getting there. [4]

By teachers required to spend most of their teaching time on testing based curriculum, they are unable to help children to develop into good learners experiencing those attributes stated above. Numbers one, two and three of the NEA Code of Ethics makes it clear that teachers have a responsibility to not restrain, and to in fact, encourage varying points of view and to deliberately and thoughtfully expose subject matter that is

elevant to the student’s progress. This means that standardize testing programs are in direct conflict with the Code of Ethics. If the teacher teaches children to expand their thinking and question their world and not the “testing” curriculum, or if the teacher, using the “test” curriculum, teaches children to explore beyond the “testing” curriculum, the teacher may not be focusing the students’ energy on “Test Success”. So a student may gain life long learning skills, and fail “the test”. There doesn’t seem to be time to do both tasks adequately (attributes to learning and questioning as well as prepare for standardized testing). Children are robbed of quality “thinking” time, when so much test curriculum is demanded to be taught each year. Teaching children to “think” requires time to develop, and to communicate, to be listened to, to conclude and rethink and to re-communicate. The process becomes as important as the outcome. Unfortunately, this process is not “testable”.

Number four of the NEA Code of Ethics states that teachers have a responsibility to protect students from conditions harmful to learning or to health and safety. By administering standardized tests teachers often put children into harms way. The tests themselves help create negative assumptions for some children. “No matter how much I improve everyone else will get better too, I am always going to be at the bottom. Thus, why bother trying.”[5] It is harmful for the students to be viewed as a test score rather than an individual. “These tests contribute to the already pathological competitiveness of our culture, where we come to regard others as obstacles to our own success – with all the suspicion, envy, self-doubt, and hostility that rivalry entails.”[6] The child quickly begins to understand and believe on some level, that others are in competition for what he/she wants in life, even at a young age. Assigning a child an achievement score becomes more important than learning. The Association for Childhood Education International has identified several reasons that they are opposed to all testing of young children. “There is increased pressure on children, setting too many of them up for divesting failure and, consequently, lowered self-esteem…compels teachers to spend precious time

preparing children to take the tests, undermining their efforts to provide developmentally sound program responsive to children’s interests and needs…[and] limits educational possibilities for children, resulting in distortion of curriculum, teaching and learning, as well as lowered expectations.”[7] Teachers know standardized testing is not good for children; however they feel they are left helpless and voiceless to be able to stop the ongoing push for more and more testing.

It is harmful to put students in the path of “high stakes” testing. They become pawns of “the system” and student learning becomes secondary to test score outcomes.

“Officials have responded [to educator’s reluctances to give the tests] by using an assortment of bribes and threats to coerce everyone into concentrating on the test results. If the scores are high, the bribes may include bonuses for teachers and schools. Students, meanwhile, may receive food, tickets to theme parks or sporting events, exemptions from in-class final exams, and even substantial scholarships. The threats include loss of funding or accreditation for schools, while students may be held back a year or denied a high school diploma if they don’t test well, regardless of their over-all academic record. Collectively, these kinds of tactics are known as “high–stakes” testing”.[8] *

Teachers find themselves even more frustrated and more unable to support and perform their own Code of Ethics when parents and even students become part of the pressure to participate in these testing programs.

Standardized testing results are used for many outcomes other than accountability and setting standards. The Code of Ethics says teachers should not intentionally expose the student to embarrassment or disparagement nor distort subject matter relevant to the student’s progress. Teachers know that “high stakes testing” scores are often misused. These assessments are used to promote and retain students in the grades, and often used to place children in special education programs. The assessments can lead to harmful tracking and labeling of students as well as limiting their educational possibilities, resulting in distortion of curriculum, teaching and learning, as well as lowered

expectations.[9] Those who take the test can gain benefits if they score well, and have the advantage of “rewards”, while others are denied benefits that could help them develop as better students. The reward system does not stimulate “long term gains”, but rather short term gains with “concrete payoffs”. Learning is lost in the “game” of rewards. Again Teachers are in conflict with their own Code of Ethics.

Teacher Code of Ethics says that students will not be excluded from, denied benefits of, or granted advantage of any program on the basis of race, color, creed, sex, national origin, marital status, political or religious beliefs, family, social or cultural background, or sexual orientation. Children that attend schools that often do not perform well on Standardized Tests are schools located in low socio-economic areas. Children learn at different rates and have different needs before academic learning can proceed. For example it has been well documented that children learn best when they eat breakfast before school. Children who come to school having a rich oral language at home have a better chance to be successful. So it stands to reason that children from low socio-economic backgrounds are more at risk than other students when competing in “high stakes” testing. The Testing itself does not motivate children to do better, nor does standardized assessments motivate closure of the “achievement gap”. “We cannot close the achievement gap until we close the gap in investment between poor and rich schools…[otherwise,] we hold children responsible for our own inaction and unwillingness to live up to our own promises and our own obligations.[10]

With all the overwhelming evidence stating standardized testing is not in the best interest for children, teachers are failing to follow the Code of Ethics to protect their students from these forms of assessments. Teachers have been placed in a position that their own livelihood is at risk if they refuse to administer these tests. So they have been forced to make a decision between themselves and their students. Logically, many teachers decide to help as many students as they can survive this dangerous practice and

provide as much support as possible for students, but feel they cannot stop the strong political tide that pushes them to be in conflict with their professional Code of Ethics.

“Making students accountable for test scores works well on a bumper sticker and it allows many politicians to look good by saying that they will not tolerate failure. But it represents a hollow promise. Far from improving education, high stakes testing marks a major retreat from fairness, from accuracy, from quality and from equity.”[11]

Work Cited

Kohn, Alfie. The Case Against Standardized Testing: Raising the Scores, Ruining the Schools. Portsmouth: Heinemann, 2000.

Kohn, Alfie. The Schools our Children Deserve. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999.

NEA: Code of Ethics of the Education Profession. 7 Nov. 2004

Standardized Tests for Young Children? Not Yet!!. 4 Nov. 2004

Pollard, Johnathan. The Worst Test. 11 Nov. 2004

-----------------------

[1] National Education Association. “Code of Ethics of the Education Profession.” n.pag Online. Internet. 26 Oct. 2004. Available: .

[2] Ayers, William. “Grounded Insight.” In Progressive Education for the 1990’s: Transforming Practice, edited by Kathe Jervis and Carol Montag. New York: Teachers College Press, 1991.

[3] Mitchell, Ruth. Testing for Learning: How New Approaches to Evaluation Can Improve American Schools. New York: Free Press, 1992.

[4] Bronner, Ethan. “Better Schools Is Battle Cry for Fall Elections.” New York Times, 20 September 2998a: A1, A32.

[5] Kohn, Alfie. The Schools our Children Deserve: Moving Beyond Traditional Classrooms and ‘Tougher Standards’. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1999.

[6] Kohn, Alfie. No Contest: The Case Against Competition. Rev. ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1992.

[7] ACEI, “On Standardized Testing: A Position Paper of the Association for Childhood Education International.” Childhood Education. Spring, 1991. pg.130-142.

[8] Kohn, Alfie. The Case Against Standardized Testing: Raising the Scores, Ruining the Schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2000.

[9] (ACEI 2)?

[10] Wellstone, Paul. “High Stakes Tests: A Harsh Agenda for America’s Children.” Speech delivered at Teachers College, Columbia University, March 31, 2000.

[11] (Wellstone, Paul. 2000)?

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download